DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGION 9 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA and LOCAL 1450, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, FEDERAL DISTRICT 1, IAM&AW, AFL-CIO

United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

In the Matter of

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT
REGION 9
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

and

LOCAL 1450, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF

FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, FEDERAL
DISTRICT 1, IAM&AW, AFL-CIO

Case No. 03 FSIP 54

DECISION AND ORDER

Local
1450, National Federation of Federal Employees, Federal District 1, IAM&AW,
AFL-CIO (Union), filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service
Impasses Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation impasse under the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute), 5 U.S.C. § 7119,
between it and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region 9, San
Francisco, California (Employer).

After
investigation of the request for assistance, the Panel determined that the
dispute, which concerns ground rules for negotiating a successor
collective-bargaining agreement (CBA), should be resolved through an informal
conference with Panel Member John G. Cruz. The parties also were advised that if
no settlement was reached, Member Cruz would report to the Panel on the status
of the dispute, including the parties’ final offers and his recommendations
for resolving the impasse. After considering this information, the Panel would
take whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the impasse, which could
include the issuance of a binding decision.

Pursuant
to this procedural determination, Member Cruz conducted an informal conference
with the parties on June 24, 2003, at the Employer’s offices in San Francisco,
California. During the course of the meeting, the parties explored their
interests and made some progress towards resolution of the issues. Thereafter,
the parties submitted to the Panel, and each other, their final offers on eight
issues along with statements of position; only the Union submitted a rebuttal
statement. Following the exchange of their final offers and statements of
position, the parties continued discussions over the proposals which resulted in
the voluntary resolution of six issues. Accordingly, Member Cruz has reported to
the Panel on the two remaining issues, and it now has considered the entire
record.

BACKGROUND

The Employer, the Pacific/Hawaii Region
(Region 9),(1) is one of 10 regions within the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) responsible for programs that address America’s housing
needs, including improvement and development of the Nation’s communities, and
enforcement of fair housing laws. The Union represents approximately 575
professional and non-professional bargaining-unit employees stationed in 11
offices in four states within Region 9. Employees hold positions such as
appraiser, architect, fair housing specialist, housing project manager, single
family housing specialist, and program assistant; typically, employees have
technical, financial management, and contracting skills. The parties’ current
CBA, which was scheduled to expire on December 2, 2002, has been extended until
a successor agreement is implemented.(2)

ISSUES AT IMPASSE

The
parties disagree over the maximum number of Union negotiators who would be on
official time while at the table for term negotiations, and the number of Union
negotiators who would have their travel expenses and per diem allowances
paid for by the Employer during contract bargaining.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. The Employer’s
Position

In
essence, the Employer proposes to grant official time for up to three employee
members of the Union’s bargaining team, who are designated in writing, to
conduct negotiations. An additional non-employee may serve on the Union’s
team, though not at Government expense. As to travel and per diem, the
Employer proposes to pay the authorized travel expenses and per diem
allowances for up to three employee members of the Union’s bargaining team.The Employer contends that limiting the number of Union negotiators on
official time to three would promote efficiency in the use of staff resources
because the parties have not agreed to a time limit on renegotiating the CBA.
Furthermore, since the management team will have only three negotiators,
authorizing official time for three Union negotiators would be consistent with 5
U.S.C. §7131(a).(3) Even with only three Union team members on official time, the
Union still would have the advantage of a fourth bargaining team member at the
table–-the Union’s business agent. Limiting the Union to three team members
on official time should not interfere with the Union’s ability to represent
the interests of bargaining-unit members in the four-state area throughout the
Region because the Union has the ability to communicate with them through
e-mail, teleconference and regular mail, should it need to have employee input
during bargaining.

With
respect to travel and per diem, to contain the cost of bargaining over
the successor CBA, the Employer should not be required to pay these expenses for
more than three Union negotiators. Such costs could be substantial since the
parties have not placed any restrictions on the amount of time they would be in
negotiations. Its proposal is consistent with the current practice for
bargaining mid-term matters, where management only pays travel and per diem for
up to three Union employee negotiators, a resolution that was ordered by the
Panel when it issued a decision regarding the parties’ previous impasse on the
current CBA.

2. The Union’s
Position

Essentially,
the Union proposes that management provide official time, as needed, for four
employee members of the Union team, designated in writing. An additional
non-employee also would serve on the Union team. Furthermore, the Employer
should pay all authorized travel expenses and per diem allowances for up
to four employee negotiators. The parties’ experience in bargaining over the
current CBA supports the Union’s position that it should have four negotiators
on official time, plus a fifth non-employee negotiator at the table. In this
regard, the Union represents employees in a four-state area, stationed in 11
different offices, who have a wide variety of interests that need to be
represented at the bargaining table. According to the Union, a previous contract
was not ratified by the Union membership because all interests were not
represented at the table. The proposal demonstrates its willingness to
compromise because, initially, the Union had proposed to have five team members
on official time. A reduction to four is a change from two previous term
contract negotiations where the Union’s bargaining team included five team
members on official time.

Payment
of travel and per diem for four employee negotiators would provide the
Union with the flexibility to appoint team members from various offices
throughout the four-state area where bargaining-unit employees are stationed. In
this regard, the only Union negotiator located in San Francisco, where
bargaining is to take place, is eligible for retirement and, therefore, it may
be necessary for the Union to replace him with someone from a field office in
another state. The Union does not have the financial resources to pay for travel
and per diem expenses during these contract negotiations, which will
involve bargaining over many more articles than were opened during negotiations
over the current CBA. The increased scope of bargaining also supports the Union’s
need for at least four representatives at the table, some of whom are from
geographic areas outside of San Francisco.

CONCLUSIONS

Having
carefully reviewed the evidence and arguments presented in support of the
parties’ positions, we shall order the adoption of the Employer’s proposals
on both issues. In our view, since the parties have not established any limits
on the duration of their negotiations for a successor agreement, it is not
unreasonable to insist upon a mechanism in their ground rules designed to limit
the Employer’s exposure to funding face-to-face collective bargaining. By
restricting the number of Union negotiators to three on official time, and
authorizing the payment of travel and per diem for the same number, the
expense of face-to-face contract negotiations would be contained to a greater
extent than under the Union’s proposal. An employer’s interest in limiting
this obligation is not, in and of itself, a compelling reason to accept the
Employer’s proposal, but here, we are persuaded that the Union is not
disadvantaged by this outcome. As the Employer points out, there are other means
of communicating with bargaining-unit members, such as e-mail and
teleconferencing, which should enable the Union to obtain employee input on
various issues of interest in the geographically disbursed bargaining-unit which
it represents. Furthermore, this outcome will promote less costly methods of
collective bargaining while simultaneously providing the parties incentive to
make face-to-face collective bargaining more meaningful.

ORDER

Pursuant
to the authority vested in it by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119, and because of the failure of the parties
to resolve their dispute during the course of proceedings instituted under the
Panel’s regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 2471.6(a)(2), the Federal Service
Impasses Panel under § 2471.11(a) of its regulations hereby orders the
following:

The
parties shall adopt the Employer’s proposals on official time, and the payment
of travel expenses and per diem allowances for employee negotiators on
the Union’s bargaining team.

By direction of the Panel.

H. Joseph Schimansky
Executive Director

December 10, 2003
Washington, D.C.

1.
Another union, the American Federation of Government Employees, represents the 15 employees who work in the Hawaii office.

(a) Any employee representing an exclusive representative in the
negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement under this chapter shall be
authorized official time for such purposes, including attendance at impasse
proceeding, during the time the employee otherwise would be in a duty status.
The number of employees for whom official time is authorized under this
subsection shall not exceed the number of individuals designated as
representing the agency for such purposes.